|
It's really easy, everyone. If you want to be religious, you do it on your own time. It doesn't go anywhere near your politics or your worldview or your ballot box. If it does, you are a fascist, even if your intentions are seemingly pure. That's the price you pay to belong to civilization: you can't justify your use of force on others via something that can't be explained or extrapolated. If this is unsatisfactory, you're welcome to live in the woods with other members of your coven.
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
Are you... actually a libertarian?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Sinnlos posted:We are all perfectly rational actors, which is why Libertarianism is a coherent and practicable ideology with zero flaws. Haha I called it. All people are nutty guys!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Are you... actually a libertarian?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
Then are you a consequentialist?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
What if all logic is flawed??? What if squares are acually circles? THen maybe my religious arguments are actually ok in any kind of logical conception of a public sphere? Yes, I'm 9,
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Then are you a consequentialist?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
"Off your medication" is not the same as dadaism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because the topic of the thread is conflict between religion and leftist politics, which merits an analysis of the different motivations and goals of each? I literally have no idea what you are on about. Conflict exists between the left and religion because religion often decides to poo poo on minorities, gay marriage is a case in point. You suggest an analysis of different motivations. Decent people: 1. It would be swell if everyone could marry their partners and society would be better Mean people: 2. We have rules to follow and we like making GBS threads on people and making their lives miserable And your argument against changing rules so everyone can be happy is, we have rules and we hate people. Maybe you might begin to understand where the hostility is coming from....
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"Off your medication" is not the same as dadaism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
zh1 posted:What is all logic is flawed??? What if squares are acually circles? THen maybe my religious arguments are actually ok in any kind of logical conception of a public sphere? Yes, I'm 9, Listen, you don't understand sarcasm, you struggle with reading comprehension, and you'd rather be "right" than actually engage with anyone. Take a step back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I literally have no idea what you are on about. Conflict exists between the left and religion because religion often decides to poo poo on minorities, gay marriage is a case in point. You suggest an analysis of different motivations. I mean maybe there's also people who think that God just really hates buggery and that you'll go to hell if you do it and that no matter how much fun dick in the butt might be it's better in the long run if you don't do it. I'm fairly sure that churches don't hand out waxed moustaches for their congregations to twirl because they get to be so delightfully evil today. Like it's possible for someone to be wrong without them also a Saturday morning cartoon villain. People can be wrong in good faith. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I literally have no idea what you are on about. Conflict exists between the left and religion because religion often decides to poo poo on minorities, gay marriage is a case in point. You suggest an analysis of different motivations. I'm sorry you grew up in a Baptist church.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
Sinnlos posted:Listen, you don't understand sarcasm, you struggle with reading comprehension, and you'd rather be "right" than actually engage with anyone. Take a step back. hahaha (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
zh1 posted:hahaha Bud you tried to tell me what my religious and political views are, having never engaged with me prior.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
zh1 posted:You are only one of the two of those! You're kind of an idiot hth. On the bright side, there is still time to educate yourself!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
zh1 posted:It's really easy, everyone. If you want to be religious, you do it on your own time. It doesn't go anywhere near your politics or your worldview or your ballot box. If it does, you are a fascist, even if your intentions are seemingly pure. That's the price you pay to belong to civilization: you can't justify your use of force on others via something that can't be explained or extrapolated. If this is unsatisfactory, you're welcome to live in the woods with other members of your coven. If your definition of racist includes MLK, you are a moron and need to use words better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
Souls to the Polls is a program that delivers a shitload of votes for the Democrats, should we cancel it because religion can be bad?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
zh1 posted:You are only one of the two of those! There are way more lefty Catholics than there are lefty Protestants. Protestantism is a death cult.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Like it's possible for someone to be wrong without them also a Saturday morning cartoon villain. People can be wrong in good faith. And if the religious folk kept their religious views and rules how to live to themselves, we wouldn't have an issue. And until that happens, religious folk imposing their religious rules on society at large, must be opposed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
I think that's a more specifically American problem and its propensity for having particularly deranged protestant sects in it.BattleMoose posted:And if the religious folk kept their religious views and rules how to live to themselves, we wouldn't have an issue. And until that happens, religious folk imposing their religious rules on society at large, must be opposed. That makes absolutely no sense if they believe that their position is correct and the way to ensure the most meaningful welfare for everyone. By that logic they should legitimately be able to say that your godlessness is damning people to hell and you must be silenced... That someone does not use the same ethical system as you is a really lovely basis for arguing for or against their representation especially from a consequentialist perspective because a consequentialist should not care why someone does a thing, only that they do... OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:You're kind of an idiot hth. prediction: i get probated and he doesn't
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:If your definition of racist includes MLK, you are a moron and need to use words better. d&d 2017 everyone
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think that's a more specifically American problem and its propensity for having particularly deranged protestant sects in it. Yeah, Roman Catholicism has certainly never worked against leftists on a societal level by collaborating with fascist regimes, nor would they ever speak out about cherished rights like a woman's right to an abortion, or the rights of gay people to get married and adopt kids. They're so easy-going... real live-and-let-live types, always keeping their opinions firmly to themselves. Never seeking political influence, no sir!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, Roman Catholicism has certainly never worked against leftists on a societal level by collaborating with fascist regimes, nor would they ever speak out about cherished rights like a woman's right to an abortion, or the rights of gay people to get married and adopt kids. That was in reference to the assertion that Protestantism was a death cult..? I didn't say Catholicism was good. But classifying "Protestantism" as, well, anything coherent is a bit silly given that it incorporates wildly divergent political and theological perspectives. As, to be honest, does Catholicism to a surprising degree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That makes absolutely no sense if they believe that their position is correct and the way to ensure the most meaningful welfare for everyone. The primary issue with religion is the issue of belief and complete faith in a position. So even wrong positions cannot be changed. Just be like every other decent person in society and be willing to engage with social issues in a rational context. So when we say gay marriage is awesome for society, maintaining that your have an old book that says different, is actually hurting how our society moves towards treating people decently. I mean, if you have a valid reason to oppose gay marriage, go for it. But because you have and old book that says different is just literally insane. quote:By that logic they should legitimately be able to say that your godlessness is damning people to hell and you must be silenced... My godlessness is only damning me to hell. And seeing as I don't believe in it there isn't any issue. See how I keep those beliefs to myself... EDIT: And I am not advocating censure ship but vocal opposition. Freedom of expression is an important right in our society. Are you also okay with censoring positions you don't like? BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, Roman Catholicism has certainly never worked against leftists on a societal level by collaborating with fascist regimes, nor would they ever speak out about cherished rights like a woman's right to an abortion, or the rights of gay people to get married and adopt kids. There's lots of kinds of Catholics, some of them are even different from how you describe. Which is weird, I know, for a religion with 1.2 billion adherents.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Except you... aren't keeping them to yourself, you're saying that society should not enforce the rules that your opponents believe are integral to the long term wellbeing of everybody in the world... You essentially appear to be arguing that consequentialism is an absolutely correct moral system and in the same breath complaining about your opponents' adherence to an absolute concept of morality...
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That was in reference to the assertion that Protestantism was a death cult..? I didn't say Catholicism was good. But classifying "Protestantism" as, well, anything coherent is a bit silly given that it incorporates wildly divergent political and theological perspectives. As, to be honest, does Catholicism to a surprising degree. I once lamented to a Christian friend of mine who is quite the historian that Early Christianity was so interesting with all its divergent sects and not even a real canon. He countered by saying there are probably far, far more different denominations of Christians today with an even grater range of ideas and interpretations than there ever was in the first couple centuries after Jesus' death. I'm inclined to agree now I've read up a bit more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That was in reference to the assertion that Protestantism was a death cult..? I didn't say Catholicism was good. But classifying "Protestantism" as, well, anything coherent is a bit silly given that it incorporates wildly divergent political and theological perspectives. As, to be honest, does Catholicism to a surprising degree. Oh, sorry, I didn't follow exactly what was being referred to there, since it was a bit confusing. And when you say Catholicism has a bunch of political and theological perspectives, it really depends whether you are talking about the organization of the Roman Catholic Church which, by and large, does not have a diversity of opinions, or of the individual people who make up the Roman Catholic Church (nuns, priests, bishops, etc.), in which case there is much more diversity of opinion, or if you're talking still about all those who profess to be Roman Catholic, in which case there is more diversity still. I think, as a leftist, it would be very easy to be opposed to a lot of the organizational behaviour of the Roman Catholic Church while at the same time supporting many of the things done by Catholics and in the name of the Church.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I once lamented to a Christian friend of mine who is quite the historian that Early Christianity was so interesting with all its divergent sects and not even a real canon. He countered by saying there are probably far, far more different denominations of Christians today with an even grater range of ideas and interpretations than there ever was in the first couple centuries after Jesus' death. I'm inclined to agree now I've read up a bit more. For all that Protestantism trends towards the weird and wonderful the more liturgical traditions have the benefit of a thousand plus years of theological literature to draw on so if you want to you can probably find justification for any position you want in almost any denomination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Except you... aren't keeping them to yourself, you're saying that society should not enforce the rules that your opponents believe are integral to the long term wellbeing of everybody in the world... I am keeping my religious views to myself. I have not once shared my religion or encourage people to change their religious views. I am not encouraging anyone to share in my godlessness. OwlFancier posted:You essentially appear to be arguing that consequentialism is an absolutely correct moral system and in the same breath complaining about your opponents' adherence to an absolute concept of morality... I am not. I am saying having "rules/laws" that don't dick on people because of sexual orientation/gender/race are good for society. You hold an alternate position because, no one knows why.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:There's lots of kinds of Catholics, some of them are even different from how you describe. Which is weird, I know, for a religion with 1.2 billion adherents. Well, of course not every Catholic opposes birth control, and not every Catholic supported Franco, and of course not every Catholic supported moving child molesting priests around to avoid prosecution. But it is both fair and true to say that the Roman Catholic Church did, in disagreement with many Catholics, hold and act on all of those positions at various times. Which is, I think, why it's reasonable to say that the Left should be wary, at least, of organized religion, if not necessarily hostile to religion itself or the many positive ways in which it can shape and influence society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I am keeping my religious views to myself. I have not once shared my religion or encourage people to change their religious views. I am not encouraging anyone to share in my godlessness. I think possibly "do not allow your religious views to motivate your actions and also society should be structured according to my belief that your religious views should not be represented" might be a bit of a nudge in a particular theological direction?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Well, of course not every Catholic opposes birth control, and not every Catholic supported Franco, and of course not every Catholic supported moving child molesting priests around to avoid prosecution. But it is both fair and true to say that the Roman Catholic Church did, in disagreement with many Catholics, hold and act on all of those positions at various times. Which is, I think, why it's reasonable to say that the Left should be wary, at least, of organized religion, if not necessarily hostile to religion itself or the many positive ways in which it can shape and influence society. Criminy, it's like 2005 in here with the goontheists popping up. So, since you're probably smart enough to understand this, imagine for a minute that "left/right" is not simply a matter of where one's opinions are on social matters, but in fact is traditionally very much associated with economics. There are many leftists who are/were very socially conservative, but we would still call them leftists - many of the Soviets, for instance, or Castro, or Saint Archbishop Romero. Also, go back to your own examples and see what precisely the "Church" positions are on those subjects. You may discover, if you are honest with yourself, that they are not monolithic!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:So, since you're probably smart enough to understand this, imagine for a minute that "left/right" is not simply a matter of where one's opinions are on social matters, but in fact is traditionally very much associated with economics. There are many leftists who are/were very socially conservative, but we would still call them leftists - many of the Soviets, for instance, or Castro, or Saint Archbishop Romero. This also is important, social issues like LGBT rights are traditionally a liberal position, not a left one. The two are often lumped together nowadays and there is no reason for them to be opposed, but they are not, traditionally, a package deal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think possibly "do not allow your religious views to motivate your actions I don't care so much as to how it motivates your actions but as to how it defines or violates our LAWS. OwlFancier posted:and also society should be structured according to my belief that your religious views should not be represented" might be a bit of a nudge in a particular theological direction? Of course it is. But I am not trying to convert you or trying to force my religious views on you. I actually respect your right to religious freedom. But I also demand that you respect other people in society and not force your religious rules onto them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
That's kind of like saying "I respect your right to religious freedom except I don't think you should be allowed to have your secular views at all represented in our laws and society, just keep them to yourself." Which is to say, I don't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
So is anyone advocating getting rid of Souls to the Polls?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That's kind of like saying "I respect your right to religious freedom except I don't think you should be allowed to have your secular views at all represented in our laws and society, just keep them to yourself." That is literally exactly the opposite of what I am saying. It is exactly your SECULAR views which should be represented in our laws and society. I would like to now hear your SECULAR views on why gay marriage shouldn't be a thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 05:21
|
|